If more than one fault is thrown then only one is handled by a fault
handler, either in the same or in an enclosing scope. All other faults are
lost. This rule applies to bpws:missingReply as well.
In (2), the check allows to throw bpws:missingReply to an enclosing scope
after a different fault has been handled in the scope that completes
unsuccessfully. The "different fault" may be a different "instance" of a
bpws:missingReply fault as well.
Do you still see an issue w.r.t this behavior, or can you suggest better
language for 221 that would not trouble you :-) ?
Kind Regards
DK
Danny van der
Rijn
<dannyv@tibco.com To
> wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
25.01.2006 22:35
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal
vor Vote
I had sent this question to the irc during the meeting before I had to
go. Don't know if it got discussed or not.
point (2) - why is this only "(for a different fault)"?
more specifically:
- if there is more than one IMA that caused the fault to be thrown, and
there is still at least one open (but less than before) at the end of
the <catch missingReply>, what happens?
- if the <catch missingReply> opens a new IMA that it doesn't close
before it's done, what happens?
the inconsistent nature of dealing with these, especially since they can
exitOnStandardFault, truly troubles me.
Danny
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
> Two additional changes to the 221 resolution (friendly amendments):
>
> (A) First sentence: Drop "during termination of a scope, "
> (B) Appendix A (missingReply standard fault):
>
> Result:
>
> (A) Add to the end of 14.4:
> --------
> The standard fault bpws:missingReply can also be detected if one or more
> receive operations using a partner link or message exchange defined in
the
> scope remain open.
> (1) If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope have
> completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If one is
detected
> then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself can catch it as this
> is still inside of the scope.
> (2) If a fault handler (for a different fault) has completed then a check
> for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected then a
> bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or
> rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).
> (3) If a fault handler itself throws or rethrows a different fault to the
> parent scope then no check for missing replies is made, so a
> bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (similar to a case where multiple
> faults have been detected and only one gets propagated).
> (4) If the termination handler is executed then no check for missing
> replies is made, so a bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (like any
other
> fault thrown in the termination handler).
> --------
>
> (B) Change Appendix A (missingReply standard fault) from:
> --------
> Thrown when a receive has been executed, and the process instance
reaches
> the end of its execution without a corresponding reply having been
> executed.
> --------
> To:
> --------
> Thrown when a receive has been executed, and the process instance or a
> scope reaches the end of its execution without a corresponding reply
having
> been executed.
> --------
>
> Kind Regards
> DK
>
> ----- Forwarded by Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM on 25.01.2006 17:39 -----
>
> Dieter
> Koenig1/Germany/I
> BM
To
> wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> 19.01.2006 17:58
cc
>
>
Subject
> [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal
vor
> Vote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The last paragraph of section 14.4. "Web Service Operations" (starting
with
> "The fourth extension ...") introduces the standard fault
> "bpws:missingReply".
>
> Add the following text to the end of the paragraph:
>
> --------
> The standard fault bpws:missingReply can also be detected during
> termination of a scope, if one or more receive operations using a partner
> link or message exchange defined in the scope remain open.
> (1) If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope have
> completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If one is
detected
> then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself can catch it as this
> is still inside of the scope.
> (2) If a fault handler (for a different fault) has completed then a check
> for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected then a
> bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or
> rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).
> (3) If a fault handler itself throws or rethrows a different fault to the
> parent scope then no check for missing replies is made, so a
> bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (similar to a case where multiple
> faults have been detected and only one gets propagated).
> (4) If the termination handler is executed then no check for missing
> replies is made, so a bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (like any
other
> fault thrown in the termination handler).
> --------
>
> Kind Regards
> DK
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php